THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10958. January 13, 2016.]
DANIEL B. VALDEZ, petitioner, vs. ATTY. DANIEL C. VICTORIA, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 13, 2016, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10958 (Daniel B. Valdez vs. Atty. Daniel C. Victoria, Jr.). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-819 dated October 11, 2014 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors adopting and approving the report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner, and dismissing the case for lack of basis; and
(2) the letter dated September 18, 2015 of the IBP transmitting the documents pertaining to this case with information that no motion for reconsideration has been filed.
For resolution is a complaint against Atty. Daniel C. Victoria, Jr. for grave misconduct committed by a lawyer arising from his absence of concern for another lawyer's plight, and abject or callous refusal to heed a plea and give justice to the complainant. This case was filed before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.
The Report and Recommendation dated March 28, 2014 of Investigating Commissioner Hector B. Almeyda, Commission on Bar Discipline, IBP reads as follows:
According to the affidavit-complaint . . ., sometime in September 2004, the complainant and the respondent entered into an arrangement where the former would be handling a land registration case involving the latter's sister. Respondent was named attorney-in-fact of his sister in that case.
The properties sought to be registered consist of two (2) parcels with a combined area of about 13,000 sq.m. in Barangay Hagonoy and Bambang in Taguig City with an estimated value, according to complainant, of Php35,000,000.00. Complainant accepted the case, handling the matter from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals where favorable decisions were successively secured. Then complainant stated:
"For his handling the case, the complainant received only paltry sums of Php2,000.00 up to Php2,500.00 mainly for appearances fees despite demand for collection reminders addressed to the respondent for the payment of the more reasonable fees. For the Supreme Court case, complainant was paid for a measly Php5,000.00 (1) presumably as acceptance fee. All in all, as of the moment, complainant has received for the entire effort from the RTC, CA to the SC only the piteous amount of some Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (Php25,000.00) from the respondent." cTDaEH
And the complainant further asserted:
"The instant complaint is one for grave misconduct committed by a lawyer arising from his, we hate very much to say it, niggardliness, absence of concern for another's lawyer's plight, and abject or callous refusal to heed a plea and give justice to the complainant in challenging situation where — (a) the respondent could have done something without difficulty what the situation then demanded; (b) no prejudice would be suffered by respondent or his principal as a result thereof; and (c) the piteous plight and dire need of the complainant required a prompt positive response."
Rule 20.04 of Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is emphatic enough when it provides:
"Rule 20.04. A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud."
We do not see the instant claim approximating imposition, injustice or fraud.
In the first place, complainant identifies respondent to be an attorney-in-fact but there is hardly any showing in the pleadings filed any solid indication of that claim.
Secondly, the attorney-in-fact status of respondent, even if accepted to be true, does not include the respondent's obligation the principal may have incurred in favor of complainant.
Thirdly, even if it be accepted that respondent may have obligations to the complainant as a consequence of their arrangement, it is extremely doubtful whether the resort to the administrative complaint is appropriate to enforce what is normally a personal commitment that does not approximate per se a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility that calls for sanctions. What complainant seeks is a relief that some other forum may be in an appropriate position to grant. Although complainant prays for the suspension of respondent in the premises and/or a strong rebuke, it is at once obvious that the main aim of complainant is to get paid for what he believes he is entitled to.
That is not possible here since the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is not the venue to collect what parties fail to get out of the possible "botched arrangement."
xxx xxx xxx
In the circumstances, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of adequate basis to sanction respondent. Nonetheless, this dismissal is without prejudice to complainant seeking relief from another forum to obtain what he feels is due him as attorney's fees. Respondent, as a responsible member of the Bar, is advised to act accordingly. 1
In Resolution No. XXI-2014-819 dated October 11, 2014, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigation Commissioner, and dismissed the case against respondent for lack of adequate basis. cSaATC
Finding the recommendation of the IBP to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the case against Atty. Daniel C. Victoria, Jr. and consider the same as CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 67-69.